All movie critics are subjective, therefore go and read

http://movies2.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/movies/22shep.html

for another (quite different) take on this film

Do what I've done, and look back over the long list of highly accclaimed movies with a strong social or political message component and try to find one strong positive review from Ms. Zacharek. Particularly when the movie has a liberal bent to it. Most particularly there.

She near uniformly takes the same track in all of them; angles like-- nice try, or cute message, or boring, or badly constructed-- jeese, she hated American Beauty AND Jarhead, LOVED "Charlies Angels", loved Anapolis, hated Syrinia (too complicated)-- and so on. Get the picture? She usually doesn't.

Not that being in or out of step with the herd of critics out there means anything, it's just that Ms. Zacharek's reviews are so consistently anti-intellectual, anti-liberal and anti-deeper-meaning as to be anti-useful for judging anything that isn't either a romantic comedy of a cartoon.

Maybe she should try reviewing for Christian media. They're churning out more Jesus-sells-crap with a conservative bent than ever before, and judging from her reviews, she would probably have more interesting things to say about that genre than most of the others she handles.

Salon: Please get Andrew to look at the serious pictures, he's more thoughtful, even-handed, and isn't wingnut-with-a-latte' biased against anything with uh, deeper meaning (especially liberal) included in the story.

These sorts of reviews are useless given the obvious bias that predictably permeates her work reviewing serious film.

You typed all the words that I was thinking. Up top! High five! Thank you! Well-put!

Stephanie Zacharek: Once again trying hard to be Pauline Kael--witty, acerbic, contrarian--but coming across as dull, a scold. Have you seen a movie lately that you have liked?

Say what you will about The Good Shepherd (I myself found it somewhat tedious towards the end, and De Niro's onscreen presence to be more didactic that informative), but, Jesus, lady, try to have more fun.

- Matt

I think it's an important film because America as a relatively new country needs to get more perspective on how insidious government agencies can be. Just reading the constitution in high school is not enough. The author of this film was brave and I applaud him. Not many films nationally self -reflect. The problem is that the film going American public have been brought up with mostly happy endings or at least a beginning, middle and end story. The story in Good Shepherd is still going on and its not comfortable or "entertaining". For me, I'm a painter, I like art that represents ideas about the world we live in. Some people just want a pretty picture. I don't care if it was slow moving the first 15 minutes-it was thought provoking about a real subject that effects our lives.

...who has now taken to ranting on indiewire.com about the poor state of American film criticism (i.e., he is now, praise Jesus, permanently out of a job). Steff's crappy impersonation of Pauline Kael's saucy, insouciant style resembles Camryn Manheim trying to do an Edie Sedgwick turn. Everything she writes is migraine-inducing. Dear Salon: lose her!

I do love a well constructed political-historical/spy movie, and I don't need chase scenes to keep me awake, but this film was paint-peeling dull, horribly paced and not especially well acted. It could have been 45 minutes shorter and although perhaps just as dull, I would have saved a dollar on parking. Reading Stephanie's review was like having my thoughts reinterpreted in print.

Movie criticism is just that -- criticism. A critic's opinion is largely meant to inform the public, not to dictate the tastes of moviegoers. You don't have to agree with it! People are always mindlessly slamming critics for writing negative reviews of certain popular big-budget films. But the haters don't appreciate these same critics for bringing strong, lesser-known, less-advertised films to the attention of a wider audience of smart and curious movie lovers like Zacharek does.

I think Zacharek does a pretty good Pauline Kael imitation myself -- and that ain't a bad thing, really (especially, since Miss Kael passed on five years ago, and retired from writing fifteen years ago).

Steph's reviews are thoughtful, impassioned, and well-written (much like Pauline's). I respect Zacharek for her intelligence, her wit, her knowledge and cultivation, and her taste. She does get a bit carried away some times in her writing (much like Pauline did), but that too ain't a bad thing, really.

By the way, she does enjoy liberal message movies if (and that's a big "if", folks), they are well-made and aren't preachy and dull and smugly earnest or condescending to the audience. (Check out her review for Good Night, and Good Luck for starters.) Also, Zacharek doesn't seem too keen on "Jesus-sells" movies either (see her review for The Bludgeoning...er...The Passion of the Christ"

Stephanie Zacharek is currently my favorite movie critic (and I read quite a few them), and she is the one I read most frequently for insight, information, and entertainment -- and for the quality of her writing.

It's quite obvious that the real anti-intellectuals are the anonymous, semi-literate cretins who post a load of childish, inarticulate, scurrilous rubbish on here in a fit of pique.

(Oh, and "andrewsarris", I know you are not the real Andrew Sarris [another great movie critic, on par with Kael], since his grammar doesn't suck nearly as much as yours does; and he is likewise much more of a gentleman and a scholar than you are!)

I don't read movie reviews until after I see the movie. Otherwise, it's not fair to the director or other talents that went into it.

I saw Good Shepherd last night. It is a brilliant film--so good, in fact, that I wanted to write a fan letter to De Niro, the director. The acting throughout is first-rate.

It is also an important film. Sad, yes. Long, yes. Beautifully made, YES. There is a message in this film that is vital, but certainly not entertaining: The CIA has never done anything any good. Therefore, it should be required viewing for all patriots.